Parking, traffic, and emergency access were key topics addressed recently by Mount Kisco, its consultants, residents, and the folks behind a controversial 54-unit apartment project proposed for Dakin Avenue.
Asked to update the village’s Planning Board on Oct. 13 was Anthony Gioffre of Cuddy & Feder, the law firm representing the developer, 47 Dakin Owner LLC.
"This is an application of significant public interest, and we wanted to make sure the public is fully informed and getting accurate information,” noted board Chair Michael McGuirk before the discussion got underway.
The proposed building, to be located on a 1/2-acre parcel, would be 3-1/2 stories high on a lot directly next to the St. Francis of Assisi Church property and near the village’s Justice Court and Police Department.
It would include six studio/efficiency units, 25 one-bedroom units, 18 two-bedroom units, and five three-bedroom units.
(Amenities would include a gym, courtyard, rooftop terrace, and a civic space.)
Developers estimate that the project would add between two and eight children to the local school system. In July, board member Michael Bonforte cast doubt on that number, calling it “extremely low” and “not even close to reality.”
There are six empty and decaying structures on the site that would be razed if the project goes through.
Under the village code, a project of that size would normally require 79 parking spaces, but in September Gioffre had claimed that, because it’s a “Transit Oriented Development,” or TOD, and is within walking distance of public transportation and shopping — and allowable reductions include the exclusion of the first-floor units from the formula — it only needed 49.
Gioffre told the board then that although he wasn’t able to “commit” to it at the time, his clients were having their architects and engineers look into the possibility of excavating more deeply on the parking garage’s lower level to see if they could squeeze in a few more parking spaces.
Announcing on Oct. 13 that the applicants now think they could achieve that, bringing parking to a “one-to-one ratio,” Gioffre called it a “marked improvement” and a “bonus and benefit for this project.”
The village’s traffic consultant, Elaine Du of AKRF, agreed, calling the addition of spaces “very important to accommodate the tenants.”
However, that doesn’t mean that the issue of off-site parking isn’t, she pointed out.
According to Gioffre, an overnight parking analysis showed that there are enough spaces in the village’s South Moger and Blackeby lots that could be used through the purchase of parking permits.
But there are only 19 permits available, noted Du, calling it “not a lot.” She didn’t discount the possibility of more being offered in the future.
As far as traffic goes, Gioffre has told the village that DTS Provident Design Engineering had prepared an “impact study” that estimated that approximately 21 trips would be generated by the development during both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours.
(Du’s first review found that the project would not have an impact on traffic and proposed traffic operations. There is no traffic signal where Dakin Avenue meets Main Street; however there are two nearby intersections that do. The estimated peak vehicle count isn’t high enough to meet the federal standards required for the installation of traffic signals, she had said.)
Also under discussion is the changing of Dakin Avenue into a two-way street for its whole length and to widen it to 25 feet in order to improve traffic circulation.
Twenty-seven feet would be better because it would accommodate 10-foot travel lanes, Du said, wondering if that phase of the project should be “coordinated” with water and sewer improvements currently underway.
Anthony Oliveri, the village’s consulting engineer, pointed out that that work will be long over before anything happens with the apartment project.
Du advised the village to get confirmation from the applicant that it’s either willing to undertake the road-widening work itself or to provide a “financial contribution” for both the wider road’s design and construction.
The project has been the subject of significant debate and scrutiny, primarily around the parking issue.
McGuirk felt compelled to address that elephant in the room before the agenda item was tackled on Oct. 13.
Explaining that the site is in both the village’s Central Business District 2 and its Downtown Overlay District, he said that the current zoning code gives applicants “by right or by option” the ability to “discharge” their parking requirements up to 50 percent “by paying a fee.”
“That’s unique to just a couple of downtown zones,’’ he said, encouraging folks to look at the village’s code and the “reasoning for that.”
He read a passage stating: “The minimum parking requirements for land uses in these districts shall be provided in recognition of their pedestrian-oriented characteristics, centralized location, and proximity to multiple and public parking areas.”
This “incentive” or “availability of relief” was created by the Village Board when it approved the zoning for that area, he said.
“To clarify, the Planning Board doesn’t create zoning. We don’t grant relief from zoning. We don’t amend zoning. We are actually guided and constrained by zoning much like the applicant is. So, what we see on the page is what we work with, and we always make sure that we work within that legal framework,” McGuirk said.
“Because it’s the way to treat applicants fairly and it also protects the village,” he added.
The Planning Board set Tuesday, Nov. 24, as the date for a public hearing on the project.
In the meantime, it has been accepting written comments from stakeholders.
Several letters were entered into the record at the board’s Oct. 13 meeting. They are available to read on the village’s website.
In one of them, the Mount Kisco Volunteer Ambulance Corps and the Mount Kisco Fire Department both pushed for a secondary emergency access route and an elevator that’s big enough to accommodate a stretcher.
The second access is important if the primary approach is blocked by construction, a utility emergency, severe weather, vehicles, or other obstructions, they said.
It’s suggested that the road connect the site to the village’s court/police complex on Green Street.
They also asked that it be wide enough and have sufficient clearance and turning space, as well as a surface suitable for emergency vehicles.
Bollards (posts installed to manage traffic and protect buildings) and gates should be accessible to first responders, they said.
The letter was signed by Sam Parish, EMT-P captain of the Mount Kisco Volunteer Ambulance Corps.
A Highland Avenue resident wrote to the village expressing concern about the traffic the project might generate.
They pointed out that Dakin and Highland currently make a one-way circle — with only one stop sign — that connects to Main Street.
Several homes on Highland don’t have garages and occupants have to park on the street, they said, pointing out that the developer had first proposed 49 parking spots for 54 units.
(That has changed, with the developers now stating that they can provide 54 spaces, a one-to-one ratio.)
They added that they weren’t against housing, but a project of this size “would destroy access to our homes for all of us residents.”
“The safety and well-being of current residents, future residents, pedestrians, and emergency responders must take precedence over development that is incompatible with the limitations of the site,” the resident wrote.
Another Highland Avenue homeowner protested that the development would introduce more cars, delivery trucks, and service vehicles into the area that already has “limited room for safe passage.”
“Public safety must be a priority,” they wrote, worried about access for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances.
“This is already a challenge. In an emergency, even a short delay can have serious consequences,” they added.
Du contended that the applicant needs to test adequately for the maneuverability of both emergency and commercial vehicles.
Everyone seemed to agree that Highland Avenue, an extremely narrow, one-way residential street, was not a good place to reroute those types of vehicles.
The installation of “Dead End” or “No Outlet” signs also came up.
Furthermore, because large trucks are going to be going back and forth during construction, the Planning Board should consider adding the widening of Dakin Avenue as a condition that needs to be completed before any building permits are issued, Du advised.
That would definitely keep them off Highland Avenue, she said, also noting that, when necessary, emergency vehicles are able to go down streets the wrong way.
Board member W. Robert Phillips found the discussion a “perfect segue” to what he suspected was going to be “a somewhat unpopular” topic that he wanted to bring up—requiring the creation of another public access route as well.
Noting that there are “a lot of factors to consider,” McGuirk pointed out that the Planning Board doesn’t really have the ability to do that.
“It would be a Village Board action,” he explained.
Gioffre jumped in to say that emergency and public access are two different things, adding that the applicants don’t appear to be inclined to “entertain” the latter.
Phillips said he wanted it “on the record” that the board had at least thought about the public access issue.
Asked for her opinion, Du said that would be “incredibly complicated” especially considering it’s something the applicant had indicated that it’s “not interested in.”
McGuirk then asked Du to take “15 minutes” before the next meeting to outline “the pluses and minuses.”
“Something surface level, not too deep, not a lot of engineering, please,” he said.
Emphasizing that he’s not worried about the applicant but about seizing an opportunity that addresses the “greater good,” Phillips argued: “We have a problem. Let’s see if we can find a solution.”
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here